W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > April 2006

Re: reporting of possible ambiguities in the SPARQL documents

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20060418.153837.34471279.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

The part of the exchange that roused my attention was:

	in the implementation of SPARQLer (ARQ) that reflects other
	ambiguities in the definitions of the last draft.

My reading is that "the draft" refers to the SPARQL documentation, and thus
that the author is proposing to bring forward comments on possible
ambiguities in SPARQL.

peter



From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: reporting of possible ambiguities in the SPARQL documents
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:06:44 -0500

> On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:39 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > In response to
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0016.html
> > (excerpted below), I would be very disappointed if concerns related to any
> > ambiguity in the SPARQL documents were *not* brought up in
> > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org.
> > 
> > In my view admonishments to the contrary should either firmly repudiated or
> > the working group should officially monitor and report on the fora to which
> > such comments have been redirected.
> 
> No comments on the SPARQL specs have been redirected,
> as far as I can see.
> 
> Comments on "the implementation of SPARQLer (ARQ)" were
> directed to another forum.
> 
> 
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0016.html]
> > 
> > From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:04:00 +0100
> > Message-ID: <DF5E364A470421429AE6DC96979A4F6F99A75A@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
> > To: Jorge Pérez <jperez@utalca.cl>
> > Cc: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
> > 
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > > From: Jorge Pérez <mailto:jperez@utalca.cl>
> > > Date: 18 April 2006 17:18
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > Thanks again for your time, I will start with another thread to discuss
> > > about some *problems* (from my point of view) in the implementation of
> > > SPARQLer (ARQ) that reflects other ambiguities in the definitions of
> > > the last draft.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Jorge
> > 
> > This is the DAWG working group comments list. Please send ARQ bug reports to jena-dev@groups.yahoo.com 
> > 
> > http://jena.sourceforge.net/ARQ/support_request.html
> > 
> > 	Andy
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 19:38:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT